I wondered the same thing when I saw this story. I actually wondered if it WAS done on purpose. DougAdam Gregorich said:
So you're claiming that the whole concept of "A list talent" has no, and never did have, any meaning. There is no correlation between what pay people command and how talented they are. I disagree with that, and I think Rand would too.Colin Jacobson said:
Schwarzenegger and Stallone are action stars, not dramatic actors, so it's rather misleading to lump them into a ranking of "best" (they were the best action stars) based on pay without differentiating type. And it's not just a matter of pay. The most talented people in Hollywood (regardless of how much they make) were not interested in making this film, not based on pay or revenue, but the message of the novel. As I said, the producers made do with what was available.Colin Jacobson said:
Yes, George Clooney is never going to do this movie but virtually any movie with a $20 million budget based off of a famous book can find a talented actor, director etc. who need a job and would happily take the gig. They might only be doing it for a paycheck and in the hopes that they can use it to get another movie but they could still find a talented folks to fill the positions and none of them are going to be backlisted by those who find the book objectionable beceause every one in Hollywood can understand the plight of needing a job (even if it's one they hate).RobertR said:
Why do you think the two are mutually exclusive? There was no big payday AND there was no non monetary motivation.Colin Jacobson said:
I would disagree because these critics have a track record. They generally do pan these types of movies. I think your reaction has some political overtones to it. Your comment about it being one sided filmmaking at its worst is ridiculous. A Michael Moore documentary is one-sided. Take stuff out of context to support a point. Apocolypse Now is one-sided filmmaking. Paint the military with broad strokes. I went into this never having read the book nor have I since. I found the chatracters engaging. By the way, you wouldn't know good writing skills if it hit you in the head.Colin Jacobson said:
Exactly. Great actors work for scale all the time if they are interested in the material. The Ides of March cost $8 million less than Atlas Shrugged and starred George Clooney, Ryan Gosling, Paul Giamatti, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Marisa Tomei, Jeffrey Wright, and Evan Rachel Wood.RobertR said:
That's not the topic though. Everyone knows the difference between a role in a movie and their real world beliefs. If I'm an unknown AND talented actor, doing Atlas Shrugged might be my one chance for me to show off my abilities. I'm sure I'd alienate people if I did interviews or told people that I wholeheartedly agree with the book's message but taking a role in a movie that has a message that people don't agree with isn't going to lose me jobs in the future.Douglas Monce said:
So you're just "tracking". That would explain why you're unable to refute the reasons given for the film's weaknesses.Colin Jacobson said:
But thats not the way its viewed in Hollywood. There is a reason why films with a conservative point of view don't get made in hollywood. There is a reason why Jim Caviezel, in spite of having been the star of a movie that made $600 million dollars, is doing TV movies. There is a reason that Tom Clancy's novels are altered before the reach the screen so as to remove even a slight right leaning point of view. But yes actors who aren't getting hired for anything else, would and did take parts in this movie because they felt they might get seen. The problem is very few people in Hollywood who hire actors will see this film. As a conservative who worked in that system, I can tell you that it was made very clear to me that I should keep my mouth shut about it, because not only will you not get hired again, but you will quickly have no friends because no one wants to be guilty by association. DougTravisR said:
